https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11364

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIAMBU HCJR NO. E015 OF 2026 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 10, 43, 47, 48 AND 50 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ACT, KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION & THE RIGHT OF AUDIENCE, REBUTTAL & FAIR HEARING BEFORE ADVERSE & PREJUDICIAL ACTION BETWEEN PROF. WACEKE WANJOHI……………………………………………………………………. APPLICANT AND THE CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION…………………….1ST RESPONDENT THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………………………………………2ND RESPONDENT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION…………………………………………………….3RD RESPONDENT KENYATTA UNIVERSITY COUNCIL………………………………………………….4TH RESPONDENT **RULING** **Description of the Parties:** 1. The applicant describes herself as the current Deputy Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs at Kenyatta University having served in that capacity for several years. 2. The 1st respondent is the Cabinet Secretary for Education is for the time being responsible for giving policy direction on matters of Education including among others the directions to the Council of Kenyatta University the 4th respondent on the appointment of a Vice Chancellor pursuant to Section 35 of the Universities Act Cap. 210 Laws of Kenya. 3. The 2nd respondent is the principal legal advisor to the Government of the Republic of Kenya as mandated under Article 156 of the Constitution to represent the national government in court or in any other proceedings to which the national government is a party. 4. The 3rd respondent is a Constitutional Commissions established under Article 233 of the Constitution of Kenya and is mandated under Article 234 to among other mandates, exercise disciplinary control over and remove persons holding or acting in public office, promote values and principles enshrined in Article 10 and 232 of the Constitution. 5. The 4th respondent is the is the Council of Kenyatta University established under Section 35 of the Universities Act and is mandated among others to appoint Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellors and Principals and Deputy Principals of Constituent Colleges in consultation with the Cabinet Secretary for Education after competitive process conducted by the Public Service Commission. **Background:** 1. By Chamber Summons dated 21st April, 2026 brought under Section 1, 1A, 3, 3A & 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1 and Order 53 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules the applicant sought for the leave of the court to apply for judicial review orders to wit: 2. *An Order of Mandamus to compel the 1st respondent to implement the recommendation of the interviewing panel in respect of the interviews conducted on 24th and 25th March, 2026 for the position of Vice Chancellor, Kenyatta University, and to make public the results of the interviews with the respective scores and performance for the shortlisted applicants/candidates for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor, Kenyatta University.* 3. *An Order of Prohibition to prohibit the 1st, 3rd and 4th respondents from filing the position of Vice Chancellor, Kenyatta University, or appointing any other person other than the applicant, to the position of Vice Chancellor, Kenyatta University, pending the hearing and determination of the proceedings herein or for such time as the court may determine.* 4. *An Order of Prohibition to prohibit the 3rd and 4th respondents from instituting, continuing with or howsoever taking out any disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, touching on or arising from her conduct and tenure as either the Acting Vice Chancellor or any other official capacity within Kenyatta University.* 5. *An Order of Certiorari to bring to this court for purposes of being quashed the decision of the 3rd respondent contained in the letter dated 16th April, 2026 addressed to the 4th respondent, or any other such decision of and respecting the applicant, purporting to authorize and/or the institution of any disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.* 6. The applicant also sought to have the leave if granted to operate as a stay of the disciplinary proceedings intended or instituted against the applicant by the 3rd and 4th respondent, or anyone acting at their behest or call, pending the hearing and determination of these proceedings. The applicant also sought for conservatory orders in the nature of injunction to restrain the respondents from filing the position of the Vice Chancellor, Kenyatta University, or appointing any other person other than her to the said position pending the determination of these proceedings. 7. The applicant raised several grounds in support of the Chamber Summons which I will revisit shortly. 8. The Chamber Summons which was filed under certificate of urgency was placed before Hon. Lady Justice Njoki Mwangi on 22nd April, 2026. The Judge certified the same as urgent and granted the applicant leave to institute judicial review proceedings against the respondents as sought in the Chamber Summons. The leave granted was to operate as a stay of any disciplinary proceedings intended or instituted against the applicant by the 3rd and 4th respondents. 9. Further the Court granted temporary injunction barring the respondents jointly and severally from filing the position of Vice Chancellor, Kenyatta University, or appointing any other person other than the applicant to the position of the Vice Chancellor, Kenyatta University pending the hearing and determination of these proceedings. 10. The applicant was also given 14 days to file and serve the substantive Judicial Review application. The matter was set for mention on 20th May, 2026 for further directions. 11. Before the date fixed for directions, the applicant filed another Chamber Summons dated 29th April, 2026 seeking similar orders pending the hearing and determination. This was precipitated by letter received by the applicant from the 4th respondent declining to renew her contract. It was designated case number HCJR E016 of 2026. It was consolidated with HCJR E015 of 2026. 12. Both suits raise same substantive grounds. **Substantive Grounds** 1. A substantive application dated 29th April, 2026 was filed in court seeking the reliefs set out in the Chamber Summons seeking leave to institute the judicial review proceedings. The applicant set out the grounds in support of the Motion on the face of it and in the supporting affidavit thereof. 2. The applicant, a Deputy Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, Kenyatta University, applied and attended an interview on 25th March, 2026 for the position of Vice Chancellor following an advertisement placed by the 3rd respondents pursuant to Section 35 of the Universities Act. 3. The applicant contend that she is aware she was successful and was recommended for appointment as provided for under Section 39 of the Universities Act but the 1st, 3rd and 4th respondents have failed to take steps on the said recommendation. 4. To the contrary and to defeat her appointment, the applicant contends the 3rd and 4th respondents have arbitrarily and without following due process instituted disciplinary proceedings against her to pave way for the appointment of their preferred candidate. 5. The applicant terms the actions of the 3rd and 4th respondents as *ultra vires* andoffensive to all known principles of natural justice, fair-paly and equity and is in breach of the applicant’s constitutional rights. 6. The applicant contend that she was not accorded fair hearing as guaranteed under Article 50 of the Constitution. The applicant contends that the decision by the 3rd and 4th respondents to institute disciplinary proceedings against her is flawed, un-procedural and contrary to law. **Responses by Respondents.** 1. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed grounds of opposition dated 19th June, 2026. The 1st and 2nd respondents’ contention is that the dispute relates to recruitment, appointment, disciplinary control and employment relations which falls within the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court pursuant to the provisions of Articles 162(2)(a) and 165(5)(b) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. 2. It is further the contention of the 1st and 2nd respondents that the applicant has failed to comply with the mandatory doctrine of exhaustion pursuant to Section 9 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act and Regulation 77 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2020. 3. The 1st and 2nd respondents further contend that the disciplinary and administrative processes complained of by the applicant are lawful and the invocation of the judicial review proceedings at this stage is premature as the same is an attempt to scuttle a statutory process against the principle that courts should not intervene in incomplete administrative processes. 4. It is further the contention of the 1st and 2nd respondents that the applicant has not demonstrated any illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety or violation of the rules of natural justice to warrant the issuance of the reliefs sought. 5. The 1st and 2nd respondents further contend that the reliefs sought by the applicant and particularly the order of mandamus compelling the respondents to disclose the interview scores is an attempt to pre-empt the exercise of statutory discretion by the respondents in the appointment process of the Vice Chancellor of Kenyatta University. 6. The 3rd respondent in its replying affidavit sworn by Paul Famba CBS on 18th May, 2026 supports the 1st and 2nd respondents that this court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter as the issue relates to handling of complaints against a public officer and disciplinary control over public officers arising from employer-employee relationship which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. 7. The 3rd respondent further contends that this court has no jurisdiction to stay disciplinary process and it can only intervene after the proceedings have run their course except in exceptional circumstances. 8. The 3rd respondent further contend that due process was followed in the initiation of the disciplinary process and the applicant was at all time given opportunity as exhibited in the correspondence between the applicant and the 3rd and 4th respondents. 9. Further the 3rd respondent avers that at the time the applicant moved the court, it had concluded its lawful mandate and forwarded its results to the 1st respondent for action and therefore the orders sought and granted by the court had been overtaken by events. 10. The 4th respondents filed a replying affidavit sworn by Prof. Clara Samiji Momanyi. The 4th respondent equally contend that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application herein as the same involve employment and relations and the same ought to be heard by the Employment and Labour Relations Court. 11. Further the 4th respondent has outlined its roles and functions of declaring vacancy for the position of Vice Chancellor, Kenyatta University, placing advertisement calling for applications for qualified persons, shortlisting and conducting competitive interviews for the candidates which mandate it duly performed and forwarded the names of the top ranked candidates in which the applicant did not meet the requirements of the advertised vacancy. The 4th respondent refutes the claim that the applicant was ranked as the best candidates as argued by her. 12. Regarding the disciplinary proceedings, the 4th respondent has denied the applicant’s allegations that the same were arbitrary and without following due process as to date no disciplinary actions has been taken against the applicant as alleged although the 4th respondent has received communication from the 3rd respondent to conduct the same pursuant to the relevant provisions of the law. 13. The 4th respondent terms the applicant’s demand for disclosure of ranking scores and performance as misconceived, premature and an abuse of the court process as the recruitment process was conducted by the 3rd respondent and the record of the ranking I sin possession of the 3rd respondent hence the 4th respondent cannot be called upon to make such disclosures. 14. The 4th respondent has refuted the allegations of discrimination, *ultra vires* and violation of the applicant’s constitutional rights and aver that it acted within the Constitution and other relevant statutory laws in the recruitment and appointment process. 15. Finally, the 4th respondent has termed the reliefs sought to be misconceived as the applicant was not ranked or recommended for appointment as alleged by her. regarding the disclosure of the results the 4th respondent contend that the same is directed on the wrong party and therefore cannot issue against the 4th respondent. 16. The 4th respondent contends that the prayer for prohibition and certiorari cannot issue in these proceedings as the applicant has not demonstrated arbitrariness, unreasonableness, irrationality or any other ground for the grant of the said reliefs and the applicant’s intention in filing these proceedings is to commandeer a public office for herself against the evidence of her non-qualification. **Preliminary Objection.** 1. The respondents raised preliminary objection to the applicant’s application for judicial review. The 1st and 2nd respondents’ preliminary objection is dated 14th May, 2026. The 3rd respondent preliminary objection is dated 13th May, 2026. The 4th respondent preliminary objection is dated 14th May, 2026. 2. It was directed that the preliminary objection be heard first as the same challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the entire proceedings. The same was heard by written submissions with the respective counsels for the parties given time to highlight their submissions. 3. The gist of the preliminary objection by all the respondents is that the issues in these proceedings relates to handling complaint against a public officer and disciplinary control over public officer and the appointment and/or employment of Vice Chancellor of a public universities which are all matters of employment and labour relations and the jurisdiction to hear and determine the same is a preserve of the Employment and Labour Relations Court pursuant to Articles 162(2)(b) and 165(5)(b) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. **Respondents Submissions.** 1. The respondents took a common position in their submissions that the applicant was an employee of the 4th respondent appointed to position of Deputy Chancellor, Academic Affairs, in consultation with the 1st respondent through competitive process undertaken by the 3rd respondent. 2. Admittedly, the respondents submit that the applicant has even exhibited a letter of appointment/contract of service issued to her by the 4th respondent. 3. The respondent therefore contends that there is an employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the 4th respondent. The respondent relies on Section 2 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act on who an employee. 4. On the challenge of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents submits that the same can only be borne out of employment relationship which is exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court because Section 12 of the Employment Act provides for the manner in which disciplinary proceedings are conducted. 5. The respondents further submit that even assuming there is no employment relationship, the applicant is a prospective employee having gone through a competitive recruitment process. As such the allegations of discrimination in recruitment process are still within the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court by dint of Section 5 of the Employment Act. 6. The respondents relied on the Articles 162(2)(a) of the Constitution which establishes superior court with status of the High Court to hear and determine disputes relating to employment and labour relations. The respondents submitted that court was operationalized by Employment and Labour Relations Court Act pursuant to Article 162(3) of the Constitution with Section 12(1) of the Act outlining its jurisdiction. 7. The respondents relied on several decisions but I will just cite a few. They cited the case of ***Macharia & Another vs Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd. & Another (2012) e KLR*** where the Supreme Court emphasized that court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both and in exercising its jurisdiction, the court must operate within the jurisdictional limits conferred either by the Constitution or legislation. 8. The respondents cited the case of ***Mohamed vs National Mining Corporation & Another, Kitilit (Interested Party) (2025)KEELRC 2101 (KLR)*** where the Employment and Labour Relations held that its jurisdiction extends with respect of pre-employment, recruitment, selection and appointment or promotional dispute with the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act expressly defining and employee to include an applicant for employment or prospective employee. Thus, pre-employment transactions or relationship fall within the jurisdiction of Employment and Labour Relations Court. 9. The respondents also cited the Supreme Court decision in the case of ***Kenya Tea Growers Association & 2 others vs The National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees & 13 others (2024) KESC 3 (KLR)*** on what constitutes employment and labour dispute. **Applicants Submissions.** 1. The applicant first submitted that the preliminary objection is an academic pursuit in the sense that the respondents have not demonstrated the prejudice they will suffer whether the matter is heard by Employment and Labour Relations Court of the High Court. 2. Further the applicant relied on the case of ***Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital & 3 Others vs Gikenyi B & 152 others (2025)*** where the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the High Court that although the Employment and Labour Relations Court has exclusive jurisdiction over employer-employee disputes, the same does not extend to pre-employment disputes like in the instant case. 3. The applicant submitted that the grievance in these proceedings is not about employer-employee but the unconstitutional manner in which the recruitment process of the vacancy of Vice Chancellor was conducted and attempt by the respondents to lock her out of the position. It is submitted that the question in dispute is discrimination of the applicant on account of gender and ethnicity contrary to Article 27 of Constitution. 4. The applicant submit that there is no employer-employee relationship as required by Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act as there is no contract of employment between the applicant and the respondents. The Supreme Court decision in the case of ***Kenya Tea Growers Association & 2 Others vs The National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees & 13 Others (2024) KESC 3 (KLR)*** where it was emphasized that the High Court has residual jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for redress of denial or infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. 5. Further the applicant submits that in the event that the respondents’ argument that the High Court has no jurisdiction over the dispute herein, the High Court still retains the right to intervene in matters where there are other established arenas for adjudication of disputes. The case of ***Matu vs Rubi Energy Limited (2024) KEHC 15235 (KLR)*** where the Judge observed that the High Court may in exceptional circumstances assume jurisdiction where the exhaustive requirement may not meet the interests of justice. 6. The applicant submitted the preliminary objection raised by the respondents does not meet the threshold as settled in the case of ***Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs West End Distributors Ltd (1969) E.A 696*** as the question on whether the applicant is an employee rests with the recruitment process of the Vice Chancellor which is a moot point to be determined after factual and legal inquiry in the circumstances of this case. It is therefore not a pure point of law as envisaged in ***Mukisa Biscuit case.*** 7. Finally, the applicant argued that the respondents are estopped from raising the question of the jurisdiction of the court as they have previously prosecuted matters relating to employment in the High Court. The applicant gave an example of the **HCJR No. E232 of 2012 REPUBLIC VS THE PRESIDENT, HON. AG, COUNCIL KENYATTA UNIVERSITY, CHANCELLOR KENYATTA UNIVERRSITY, MINISTER HIGHER EDUCATION, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.** **Analysis and Determination.** 1. I have considered the all the material placed before the court. The sole issue for determination is whether the preliminary objection has merit. In so doing it must be remembered that what constitutes a preliminary objection was settled in the case of ***Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Lt vs West End Distributors Ltd (supra).*** It was settled that a preliminary objection consists a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication from the pleadings, and which argued as such may dispose the suit. The court gave examples as matters of jurisdiction. 2. In the instant case, the respondents challenge the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine the dispute herein. In the case of ***Owners of Motor Vessel “Lilian S” vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989)*** the court held: ***“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending before it the moment it holds the opinion the that it is without jurisdiction…”*** 1. In this case the respondents’ contention is that the dispute between the applicant and respondents is employment dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. The applicant holds a contrary view that the dispute is about the unconstitutionality of the recruitment process of the Vice Chancellor, Kenyatta University. In particular the applicant alleges infringement of her fundamental rights and freedoms hence this court has jurisdiction. Further the applicant argues that there is no employer-employee relationship for the dispute to fall under the Employment and Labour Relations Court. 2. Article 162 of the Constitution establishes the systems of the courts referred to as the superior court which include the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the courts mentioned in clause (2) thereof. 3. Clause (2) mandated the parliament to establish courts with status of the High Court. Clause(2)(a) relates to court of the status of the High Court to hear and determine disputes relating to employment and labour relations. Pursuant to the foregoing the parliament enacted Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. Section 12(1) of the Act outlines the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Act. It extensively provides as follows: ***“12 Jurisdiction of the court*** 1. ***The court shall have exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes referred to it in accordance with Article 162(2) of the Constitution and the provisions of this Act or any other written law which extends jurisdiction to the court relating to employment and labour relations including-*** 2. ***disputes relating to or arising out of employment between an employer and an employee;*** 3. ***disputes between an employer and a trade union;*** 4. ***disputes between an employers’ organization and trade unions organization;*** 5. ***disputes between trade unions;*** 6. ***disputes between employer organization;*** 7. ***disputes between an employers’ organization and trade union;*** 8. ***disputes between a trade union and member thereof;*** 9. ***disputes between an employers’ organization or a federation and a member thereof;*** 10. ***disputes concerning the registration and election of trade union officials; and*** 11. ***disputes relating to the registration and enforcement of collective agreements.*** 12. The court’s jurisdiction extends to any other disputes provided under any other law written law besides what is provided for under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. This includes disputes under the Employment Act; Labour Institutions Act and Labour Relations Act among other written laws. 13. With the foregoing in mind, the question for determination is whether the disputes by the applicant in these proceedings falls under the Employment and Labour Relations Court. In determining that the court has to explore what constitutes employment relationship. 14. Employment is basically a legal relationship created by a contract of service where one person agrees to work for another in exchange of wages/salary. The relationship comes with rights and duties to both parties. Among the rights is non=discrimination and equality. 15. In the instant case the applicant contention is that the dispute herein is not out of employer-employee relationship as argued by the respondents. It is her position that the same is about the unconstitutional recruitment process and as such there is no employer-employee relationship. On the other hand, the respondents have taken the position that from averments in the affidavits in support of the application herein, the applicant has admitted that she is employed by the 4th respondent as Deputy Vice Chancellor bringing the relationship to that of employer-employee. Further the respondents argue that even the pre-employment process including recruitment falls under the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. 16. In considering whether there the dispute herein falls under the Employment and Labour Relations Court; it is important to point out that the preliminary objection was argued before the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case of ***Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital & 4 others vs Dr. Magare Gikenyi & Others Petition No. E030 as Consolidated with E033 of 2025.*** The Supreme Court extensively dealt with the question of the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court and faulted the High Court and the Court of Appeal in restricting that jurisdiction to an employer-employee relationship. 17. The Supreme Court combed through various employment legislations among them the Employment Act, Labour Institutions Act, 2007, Labour Relations Act, 2007 which all outlaw discrimination in employment and held that: ***“Based on our interpretation and application of Articles 162(2)(a) and 162(3)(b) of the Constitution, read together with the provisions of the relevant statutes dealing with employment and labour relations, we entertain no doubt that pre-employment labour disputes involving parties identified under Section 12 of the ELRC Act and in related laws are in exclusive domain of the ELRC.”*** 1. Having gone through the pleadings filed by the applicant, it is not in dispute that the applicant was employed by the 4th respondent as a Deputy Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs. As at the time she applied for the advertised position of the Vice Chancellor she was an employee of the 4th respondent. This is manifestly clear from the letter of appointment she has exhibited in her annexures. This is an employer-employee relationship. It is this relationship which must have informed the respondents to institute disciplinary proceedings against her which is one of the grievance the applicant has raised in these proceedings. 2. Even assuming that the applicant was not in employment of the 4th respondent at the time she applied for the position of the Vice Chancellor and going through the recruitment process which she alleges she was successful, it all brings her dispute to the armpit of the pre-employment dispute which is exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. 3. Further to the forgoing, and even accepting the applicant’s argument that she was discriminated, Section 5 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 protects employee and prospective employees against all forms of discrimination. Similar Employment Act prohibits discrimination in employment. 4. All such disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. In fact in the case of ***Kenya Tea Growers Association & 2 others vs The National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees & 13 others (supra)*** the Supreme Court made it clear that the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction in disputes emanating from employment and labour relations including validity of statutes and violation of employment rights either under the Constitution or other relevant laws related to employment and labour relations. 5. It is my considered view that the grievances by the applicant as to the recruitment and disciplinary proceedings in which she is seeking judicial review reliefs falls within the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. 6. I must state that the applicant heavily relied on the Court of Appeal decision in ***Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital Case*** where it held that the High Court had jurisdiction over the matter. The Supreme Court clarified the position on appeal. It held that the petitioners in that case did not move the court in their capacity of employer-employee relationship, but concerned citizen on the constitutionality of the appointment of CEOs of various government entities. 7. That position is distinguishable in the instant case. The applicant herein moved the court as an employee of the 4th respondent alleging violation of her rights. She also moved the court as a prospective employee of the 4th respondents. This was not the position in ***Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital.*** 8. The applicant brought an interesting angle to these proceedings when she argued that the respondents having previously commenced and prosecuted matters related to employment before the High Court, they should be estopped from arguing that the court has no jurisdiction in respect of these proceedings. 9. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be used to disregard or override the position of the law. It has its limits. It cannot among other instances create right that the law says does not exist, validate something that is illegal or confer jurisdiction where none exist. 10. Having considered the facts in this case as laid down by the applicant, the provisions of the Articles 162 and 165 of the Constitution and the relevant employment laws and the case law particularly the decision of the Supreme Court in ***Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital*** case I come to the conclusion that the dispute in these proceedings involves employment relationship between the applicant and the respondents. I say so because it is not disputed that the applicant is employed by the 4th respondent. The recruitment process in which she is aggrieved prompting her to file these proceedings is a pre-employment dispute. Further her allegations of violation of her rights under the Constitution can be addressed by the Employment and Labour Relations Court. 11. I accordingly find that the preliminary objection is merited and the same is upheld and the entire proceedings herein are struck out with costs to the respondents. **Dated, signed and delivered at Kiambu High Court this 27th July, 2026.** **F.N Kyambia Judge of the High Court of Kenya.**